Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA, J
G Bhagwandas Sharma S/o Late G D Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike N.r. Square – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 25635 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. P.D.SURANA,ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:K.V.MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3; SMT. JYOTHI BHAT., ADVOCATE
Municipal authorities cannot change khata entries without a registered transfer of title, and principles of natural justice require notice to affected parties.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Section 114 - Challenge to endorsement by BBMP restoring khata in favor of 4th respondent - Petitioner claims property was family property purchased in mother's name - Joint Commissioner ruled khata could not be bifurcated without notice to 4th respondent and based on unregistered documents - The authority lacks jurisdiction to change municipal entries without a registered transfer. (Paras 1, 7, 24, 29)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice require that parties must be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken against them. (Paras 17, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, son of the 4th respondent, challenges the BBMP's decision to restore khata in the mother's name, claiming the property was family property. The khata was bifurcated based on a dissolution deed and a gift deed, which the 4th respondent contested.
Findings of Court:
The Joint Commissioner found that the khata had been in the name of the 4th respondent for over 25 years and could not be bifurcated without proper notice and registered transfer.
Issues: The main issues were whether the khata could be bifurcated without notice to the 4th respondent and the validity of the unregistered dissolution deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the khata could not be bifurcated based on an unregistered deed and emphasized the necessity of a registered transfer for municipal entries.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; khata restored in favor of the 4th respondent.
CAV ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the endorsement issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') whereby it has set aside the bifurcation of khata made in respect of the petitioner and restored the khata in favour of the 4th respondent in whose name it was only stood.
2. The petitioner is the son of the 4th respondent. According to him, his father had purchased the property bearing No.10/1, Palace Road under three registered sale deeds. The petitioner however admits that it was purchased in the name of the 4th respondent herein, who was stated to be the first wife of his father.
3. It is also stated that the petitioner’s father had constituted a partnership firm along with his wives, his mother and brother, under the name and style of M/s. Krishnasathi and Company (for short “firm” and to this firm the 4th respondent had contributed the property as her share on the capital of the firm and, consequently, the property became the property of the firm.
4. It is contended that the firm was dissolved by way of a Dissolution Deed dated 01.05.1985 and the property was divided amongst the partners and under the said dissolution, the 3rd floor was allotted to the petitioner, and the remaining floors were allotted to others. It is sought to be contended that upon such dissolution, the partners to whom different portions were allotted were in possession of their respective portions.
5. It is stated that an application was preferred by the petitioner and two other family members seeking for bifurcation of the khata, so that each floor would get a separate and distinct number, and this request of the petitioner was accepted by the municipal authorities under an order dated 19.02.2010.
6. It is also stated that the petitioner’s step mother Premavathi had executed a Gift Deed dated 14.10.2009 under which she gifted her share in favour of the petitioner and his brother and on the basis of this gift deed, they had sought for bifurcation of khata and this request was also acceded to and the property gifted was registered jointly in the name of the petitioner as well as his brother.
7. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent (his mother) being aggrieved by the bifurcation of khata filed a petition seeking for review as provided under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short the “KMC Act”) and the reviewing authority set aside the bifurcation of khata and has ordered its restoration in favour of the 4th respondent and pursuant to this order, the impugned communication has been made, which according to his is illegal and hence the petitioner is before this Court.
8. In the writ petition, it may also be pertinent to state here that the petitioner contends that property-in- question i.e., property bearing No.10/1 was the property of the family and was purchased in the name of the 4th respondent, who incidentally is his mother. He further seeks to contend that since she had no income, the property was purchased in her name and, therefore, the property was the property of the family and not her individual property. In fact, at paragraph No.12(a) of the amended petition reads as follows:
“12(a): That, the property bearing No.10/1, Palace Road was the property of the family and it was purchased in the name of the petitioner’s mother, the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had no income of her to purchase the said property, she was only a housewife”.
9. The petitioner also contends that this property was brought into the firm by the 4th respondent and thus it became the property of the firm. The fact, however, remains that the property was, admittedly, purchased in the name of the 4th respondent.
10. The 4th respondent has also produced copies of the Registered Sale Deeds under which the property was purchased by her. The 4th respondent, along with a memo dated 19.02.2023 has also produced the khata certificate dated 31.01.1981, which also certifies that the khata of the property bearing No.10/1, Palace Road wa
